Food Research and Supplementation operates a single anonymized review process. The editors and reviewers have access to the identities of the authors, but the identities of the editors and reviewers are not revealed to the authors. The flow chart of the editorial process is shown in
Peer Review Policy.
1. Initial Check
When a manuscript is submitted with an ID, it will be initially checked for authorship, plagiarism (
Similarity Check), and ethics by the Editorial Office. If the manuscript fails to meet the general criteria of the journal, it will be rejected for reasons such as ethical issues, high similarities, etc. The initial check-passed manuscript will be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief to check if it is in the scope of the journal and if it meets the criteria for peer review. Then, the manuscript may be sent to peer review, rejected by the Editor-in-Chief (due to being out of scope or low quality), or revised according to specific comments from the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Peer Review
The Editor-in-Chief will recommend multiple reviewers to review this manuscript. More details about reviewers’ selection can be found at
For Reviewers. Typically, two or three valid review reports are required for each manuscript during the peer review process. In these review reports, reviewers are expected to provide a recommended decision, including accept in present form, accept after minor revision, reconsider after major revision, or reject, along with specific suggestions and comments.
3. First Decision
The Editor-in-Chief will make an overall editorial decision after carefully evaluating the comments and recommendations of all the reviewers. Decision includes: Author Revision: The manuscript is sent to authors for Minor Revision/Major Revision based on reviewers' comments; Additional Reviewers Added: Further review needed; Accept: The manuscript can be accepted in its current form; Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws, and/or lacks novelty or significant contribution; Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The authors are encouraged to resubmit after conducting additional experiments and modifications.
4. Author Revision
Authors are requested to revise the manuscript point by point based on all reviewers’ and the academic editor’s comments. If the authors disagree with any comments, a rebuttal letter is encouraged.
5. Revised Version Review
The revised manuscript will be re-reviewed by the original reviewers, along with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ and the academic editor’s comments.
6. Final Decision
Once reviewers are satisfied with the revised version, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision. If the revised manuscript is still controversial, the final decision may be rejection or another round of revision, and then a decision. It depends on the Editor-in-Chief’s judgement.
Please note that for submissions to Special lssues, the GE(s) will handle the initial check and the first decision. The Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision whether to accept or reject the paper after peer review.
Please note for submissions from Editor-in-chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and other journal Board members, and authors who have conflicts of interest with them, we ensure that the manuscript will be handled confidentially by a different Board member. Editorial Office staff do not interfere with editorial decisions to ensure editorial independence.
7. Accept
Once the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision as “Accept in Present Form,” the manuscript will be accepted immediately, and the acceptance notification of the manuscript will be mailed to all authors.
8. Production and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo the production procedure, which includes copy editing, English editing, proofreading, final corrections, and conversion. Finally, publish on the website.
9. Appeal Process
Authors may appeal decisions if they strongly believe there have been errors or misunderstandings on the part of the editor or reviewers. All appeals will be carefully considered by the editors. Contact
frs@sciepublish.org